We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

On January 13, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission released a study critical of "pay-for-delay" patent litigation settlements by which brand-name drug companies pay generic competitors to keep generic drugs off the market

In In re DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig the Second Circuit reversed a district court ruling which had found that direct purchasers lacked standing to challenge a brand name manufacturer's alleged fraud on the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO

In the next few months, there will be new legislation (or, failing that, continued antitrust agency enforcement efforts) to restrict the use of litigation settlement agreements to resolve disputes between pharmaceutical industry IP rights holders and generic drug companies

Under the previous administration, the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) pursuit of antitrust challenges to patent settlements with so-called 'reverse payments' ran into at least two hurdles: (i) sceptical courts that refused to accept the FTC's theory for imposing antitrust liability; and (ii) 'friendly fire' from the Department of Justice, which was also concerned about the legality and economic effects of such patent settlements, but which viewed the FTC's proposed legal standard as too strict

In two recent cases involving antitrust claims against branded manufacturers for alleged attempts to delay and prevent generic entry, the plaintiffs alleged that each branded manufacturer filed a frivolous citizen petition with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which delayed FDA approval of generic products

On April 24, 2009, a group of professors of law, economics and business, together with the American Antitrust Institute, the Public Patent Foundation, and AARP (collectively "amici") filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reverse the decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Cirpoflaxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, 544 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("Cipro"

On February 17, the Federal District Court in the Central District of California dismissed the antitrust claims in a lawsuit between generic manufacturer Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Amphastar) and Aventis Pharma S.A. and Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Aventis”